與有過失之再建構

Abstract

與有過失理論是近代損害賠償法中學界討論密度較低而適用密度極高之領域。本論文目的在重新建構與有過失之意義與要件，從與有過失之法理基礎，藉由對照大陸法系德國、日本之學說演進，檢視與有過失制度本身應為如何之詮釋始符其最初立法本意。結論上本文採取立法例上之少數見解，認為與有過失本身即為侵害他人法益之不法行為之態樣，僅被害者身兼加害者之地位，效果上非積極地賠償責任發生，而是消極地權利不得行使而已。與傳統之不法行為相較，與有過失之啟動須透過他人加害行為之媒介，而開展於他人不法行為之上，造成兩點與構成不法行為主要之差異，即為過失程度之具體化與事理辨識能力。而此差異性之存在對與有過失構成要件之架構上有何影響？本文延續此一法理，對構成要件逐一解析，其他包括與有過失與不真正義務之關聯性、相當因果關係、迴避損害可能性等之分析，對照上開不法行為與與有過失之自身法理作解釋以求理論上一貫。而本文最重要之論點：從法體系之觀察、立法目的之落實與成本效益之考量，提出與有過失之注意義務程度上應為與處理自己事務同一注意之具體輕過失之想法，並藉此與固有意義之過失共同架構出風險社會中之多元義務，強調其同質性之內涵與競合之可能性。 除此之外，並說明與有過失之比較對象應是雙方客觀上原因力強弱之比較而非主觀過失程度之比較，後者不僅因過失程度不同而難以比較，且在無過失責任與故意責任上亦有說理之困難，主觀上過失應解為責任成立之要求較妥，與有過失乃單純客觀因果關係之判斷。最後，基於不法行為性質之立場，嘗試建立與有過失自身獨立判斷之三階（構成要件、違法、有責）理論，希藉此明確化與有過失之內涵與判斷流程。

Our Civil Code, Article 217：If the injured person has negligently contributed in causing or aggravating the injury, the court may reduce or release the amount of the compensation. If the reason of a grave injury was unknown to the debtor and the injured person has omitted to call the attention of the debtor beforehand, or to avert, or mitigate the injury, the injured person will be deemed to be negligently contributed in the injury. The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to the situation when the agent of the injured person or the person performing the obligation for the injured person has negligently contributed to the injury. is the alleviation rule of 「all or nothing 」. In the United States, comparative negligence is a partial defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the damages. When this defense is asserted, the fact-finder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence versus the combined negligence of all sued defendants contributed to cause the plaintiff's damages. It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence, which disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed, even minimally, to causing the damages. How to define Article 217 and comparative negligence is the core of this thesis.